I think that people in this last group quickly decided that democracy, human rights, free speech, and all the rest of it are, in fact, things worth believing in and defending. But looking around for allies, the only people they saw willing to act were the neocons. The neocons shared their belief that democracy could, should, and would spread. "Viral democracy" is the term you sometimes hear. The Christoher Hitchens's of the world suddenly found themselves repudiating Michael Moore and talking up the finer points of Karl Rove.

I'm going to get off the fence, here, and admit I thought the Iraqis would meet the American soldiers with flowers in their hair and then show them where all the nuclear weapons were hidden. The Iraqi people, overjoyed with freedom, would then elect a government of moderates, embark on a modernatization program that would make then the Japan of the Middle East, and democracy would sweep the region like it swept Eastern Europe in 1989.

I was wrong.

I don't know how bad things are in Iraq because I'm not there, and I'm sure they aren't as bad as some critics say, but nevertheless, nothing I read about Iraq convinces me that this was the way the Administration wanted it to happen or expected it to happen. The situation, while far from hopeless, is not going to conclude in a neat and tidy liberal democracy anytime soon. In fact, democracy in Iraq may fail altogether. Meanwhile, who's keeping an eye on the Taiwan Straights, the Korean DMZ, or Iran's nuclear program. Not this Administration.

Because of this, I predict the liberal hawks will break their alliance of convenience with the neocons. Because it is unlikely that undecided voters are neocons and much more likely that they are tortured liberals, I also predict that the undecided voters will break in favour of Kerry.